Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:04:46 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #275 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 3 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: ALSEP Termination Report another sad anniversary (5 msgs) Blue Danube Clinto and Space Funding(long...apologies) Easter Galileo Update - 10/01/92 Magellan (2 msgs) Mars Observer orbit (4 msgs) New Planet Population PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA SETI (2 msgs) Space and Presidential Politics Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Oct 1992 00:26:48 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: ALSEP Termination Report Newsgroups: sci.space Here is the final word on ALSEP: ALSEP Termination Report, James R. Bates, et.al., 1979, NASA Ref. Pub. 1036. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 14:07:36 GMT From: rivero@mdcbbs.com Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep30.211147.13160@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >>Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off >>instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave >>every prospect of continuing to do so for years. It was done to save money. >> >>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by >>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because >>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data. >>-- > > May 15, 1993 may mark another sad anniversary. That's when Magellan is > scheduled to be turned off. It will be the first time that NASA has turned > off a functioning spacecraft. NASA has recently communicated to JPL that > this will still happen. The reason is similiar, to save money. With the latest in high-tech radios and computers now available, couldn't your basic University Astronomy Department set up an Earth Station? If so, why not leave these spacecraft running for the students to work with? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Michael Rivero rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com "A Human's Human!" | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | I CAME, I SAW, I DIVORCED | <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:04:28 GMT From: david michelson Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space Re: the Apollo lunar instruments Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers. As opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization. Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications? Effective Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission... It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup. It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would be a much different story, I'm sure. -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 00:49:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct1.230428.16928@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) writes... >Re: the Apollo lunar instruments > >Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the >ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities >of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers. As >opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization. > >Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications? Effective >Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission... > >It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and >determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup. > >It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be >done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would >be a much different story, I'm sure. > >-- > >Dave Michelson >davem@ee.ubc.ca > The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon. We have been doing EME communications in the Amateur World since the fifties. (EME is Earth-Moon-Earth). EME sends a signal from Earth, bounces off of the Moon and returns to Earth where it is recieved. There are many reports in Amateur Radio magazines such as QST (American Radio Relay League, Newington CT.) that report on hams recieving the audio and video from the Astronauts, which is much harder than simply receiving the digital telemetry at a low data rate. So the answer is that no one was really interested in doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this net (which did not exist at that time either). Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 02:06:30 GMT From: david michelson Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu>, Dennis writes: [stuff about path loss and EME] > So the answer is that no one was really interested in > doing that at the time and there were no space advocacy groups with any > power around at that time to publicize the fact and scream about it on this > net (which did not exist at that time either). > Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville Thanks, Dennis, but that's not what I was asking. I wanted the gritty detail (EIRP, frequency, modulation type, and data rate). Path loss alone does not a link budget make! If anyone has access to one of the Apollo Science Reports from A14--A17, perhaps they could take a look for us... I suspect that the main problem back in 1977 would have been finding a way to store the data as it was received. PC's were rather primitive back then and even small mini's were rather expensive. The other problems, such as automatically pointing the antennas, providing sufficiently sensitive receivers, etc., could have been solved with relative ease. -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 03:19:56 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: another sad anniversary Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct1.140736.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes: > With the latest in high-tech radios and computers now available, couldn't >your basic University Astronomy Department set up an Earth Station? Equipping it with a 30m dish and liquid-helium-cooled maser amplifiers is still going to be rather expensive. Those improvements in technology haven't passed DSN by; the data-transmission rate from modern planetary missions is many times what it was twenty years ago. You really need performance close to that of DSN to get good data from Magellan in particular, because it's an extremely data-intensive mission. To get high data rates from far away, the basic laws of physics pretty well dictate that you need (a) a big dish and (b) very-low-noise amplifiers. Nothing you can do with "the latest in high-tech radios and computers" will get you around those two requirements, both of which are expensive. Your basic U.A.D. perhaps could set up an Earth station good enough to receive from a 1965 planetary mission. Unfortunately, they aren't launching those any more. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 22:26:41 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Blue Danube Newsgroups: sci.space >For some strange reason, I have visions of sleek Pan Am >(RIP) 'liners slowly spinning across a starfield. Have I gone nuts, or should >I put up my 2001 tape for a while? >-- I'd say for about 100 years. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 10:44:24 GMT From: clements@vax.ox.ac.uk Subject: Clinto and Space Funding(long...apologies) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >> I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer >> subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise >> lung cancer all over the world) >> > > I agree. The government should at the same time stop all subsidies to anti > smoking organizations. Smokers should pay very large (market and risked based) > insurance premiums for their health insurance, commensurate with the extra risk > they have chosen. I think some support somewhere for anti-smoking campaigns is needed to offset the effects of tobbaco advertising like Joe Camel and Malboro Man (I may have the names wrong as they have yet to make a strong appearance in the UK). > (I wonder... will there have to be smoking and non-smoking space settlements? :-) > I'd hope they'd only let the intelligent ones (non-smokers) on :-) >> and other agricultural subsidies. At least >> Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have >> seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them). > > > Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because there was a > refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC. The Uraguay (sp?) GATT round was stalled because of this. However, early this summer a major rearrangement of the CAP was achieved which answered most of Bush's points on it. The has rather embarrassed Bush as he was relying on the usual EEC confusion to give him an excuse not to settle the US agricultural subsidy problems. I do not think they have done anything about it yet, for obvious electoral reasons, which is probably why you haven't heard what's been going on. In this case, Bush is certainly not helping the free market... [more comments about fgarm support... agreed with] > >> a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal >> system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of >> money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere), >> > > Again, totally agreed. The tort system abandoned the ideas of simply "making an > injured party whole" where "whole" was commenserate with damages and > responsibility was assigned to the one at fault rather than by search for > a patsy to pay the bill. Might I suggest an alternative system? No-fault compensation... The majority of the money awarded in these cases is punitive and is generally over the top for the actual needs of the injured party. In addition, at least a third, and probably more, or this money gets wasted on legal fees, and never goes to help any injured party, and that is after all what we want to achieve. At the very least a limitation on liability (for Cessna and the like) is needed. >> and getting your medical >> system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having >> doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our >> health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours. > > Having experienced both, I prefer the US one. In three years here I have yet to > recieve a call from my doctor. I'm not sure what you mean here. In 28 years in the UK I haven't had a 'call from my doctor' I only see her when I'm ill. >Wellness programs are unheard of. I am also unsure what you are refering to here, as none of the practices I have been part of have mentioned such schemes. > And if you need > certain classes of operations, you are best off flying to the US and paying for it > because you might be dead before your turn in the queue comes up. This is a bit of a distortion. The waiting list system is for non-urgent and non-life threatening treatments. Things like varicose veins. You *never* have to wait for something life threatenning (at least in an acute sense). Vhronic care and other long term things w are less well sorted, but I suspect the US has problems with these as well, usually generated by money or the lack thereof. >There ARE NO QUEUES in the US. *Come on*! I have even seen US TV programmes lambasting the US medical 'system' for its dreadful treatemnt of people who can't afford to pay the hideous costs of medical bills or medical insurance. I have heard stories of people who have been cut off by their insurance company when they are found to have a serious chronic medical problem. Are you living in the same country as these people or have you got the US and UK confused???? > Oh, and my blue cross/blue shield were job benefits at CMU. And even if taken as a > cost on my paycheck there versus here, they cost less (for far better and more > aggressive service) than the amount taken out for National Health Service (NHS) in > the UK. I repeat the statistics I mentioned earlier. The US medical 'system' spends more GNP than the UK one, by about a factor of 2. It *is* thus *more expencive* for you and *everyone* else. I do not see how this relates to your suggestions here (unless you are so hideously healthy that BC has given you a no claims bonus or something...). In addition, and agressive care system is not necessarily the best. Any medical action has a side effect. Everything. A drug without a side effect is a drug without action (as my GP father says). Most of the time leaving something alone is the best, and most effective, thing to do. But the medical/legal system in the US prevents this. This is also why you get banks and banks of (expencive) tests at US doctors, so they can't be sued for missing something that might just perhaps be there. This is a silly waste of money and resources (yours). > As long as you don't get too sick and just do things like have babies, NHS > APPEARS to work quite nicely. It generally does work quite nicely. Its just that it is such a political football that people make votes by suggesting that it isn't working well for 99% of the population. >> The legal and >> medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation >> in US medicine. >> > Oh, and catastrophic coverage was handled by blue cross or in worst case, by > charity. Hospitals and doctors NEVER turned anyone away. I understand they do now... > He can tell you what publications are available from the Libertarian Alliance in > London. > Having heard several libertarians at the 1990 World SF convention I have been sickened by the whole breed. I used to thinnk it was a pretty good idea, but the shear arrogance and inability to cope with real issues (like the environment) and the inevitable litigousness of a libertarian society (which would make todays US look calm) have turned me off the whole proposition. It cannot work with todays people. > Unmucking the legal system and placing responsibility where it belongs and to the > degree with which it belongs are important issues. How do you do this? Go to court, and where back at the same old USA problem... > A society that tries for Total > Safety and which reimburses people for an accident, no matter what level of > stupidity was required for said accident, is not going to be a society that > pioneers the way to the stars. I agree on this one... -- ================================================================================ Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department ================================================================================ clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain... ================================================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:59 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Easter Newsgroups: sci.space In article <8f4.ANN@saxon.UUCP> fletcher@saxon.UUCP (Edward F Eaglehouse) writes: >I don't have any actual code to calculate Easter, but if I remember >correctly Easter falls on the first Sunday following the first full moon >after the Vernal Equinox. That is true, but which moon one uses (and for which time zone one reckons Sunday) is a matter of religious choice. The Roman rite uses a fictitious moon which is readily reduced to a numerical algorithm since it is numerological to start with. Rome, of course, is the determining venue for Sunday, presumably on whatever time zone Italian politicians choose. The Orthodox rite uses the physical moon to determine Easter and reckons Sunday on the longitude of Jerusalem, though I do not know whether apparent or mean solar time is used. The two Easters can be on different dates, though I don't know how often this occurs. The "Explanatory Supplement ..." to everything has a most readable chapter on calendars which gives (almost) all of the necessary information for calculating Easter. It makes very amusing reading for your liesure hours during the high holidays. I find it especially amusing that, after many pages of tortuous and tabular description of how Easter is reckoned, the editors have seen fit to include a *table* of dates for Easter! It is by far the easiest way to calculate that date. I find that the public is readily amused by declamation on this topic, by the way, and I have used it often. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 23:23:25 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Galileo Update - 10/01/92 Newsgroups: sci.space > As of noon Thursday, October 1, 1992, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory >status was as follows: > Distance from Earth 43,166,200 miles (.46 AU) > Distance from Sun 129,476,400 miles (1.39 AU) > Heliocentric Speed 59,800 miles per hour > Distance from Jupiter 625,618,900 miles > Round Trip Light Time 7 minutes, 50 seconds Well, if you guys at JPL can't give out the elements for Galileo's next Earth flyby, I can deduce them anyway, using the above and the previously published Galileo trajectory reports. Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:46:13 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: Magellan Newsgroups: sci.space How does Magellan move its radar attena to transmit results to earth? Is it an electric motor powered by solar power or thrusters? Is this the ultimate limitation on Magellan's lifetime then, barring breakdowns? ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 03:22:40 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Magellan Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct1.224613.29180@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes: >How does Magellan move its radar attena to transmit results to earth? The antenna is fixed to the spacecraft; Magellan as a whole rotates to point at Earth. >Is it an electric motor powered by solar power or thrusters? Magellan's rotation is done with momentum wheels, although it's necessary to desaturate them from time to time using thrusters. This does set an ultimate limit on its life. In Magellan's case, equipment failures will probably kill it before then, and budget failures will probably silence it even sooner. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 00:27:23 GMT From: Dave Rickel Subject: Mars Observer orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article , collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes: |> since the transfer orbit is close to a Hoama Homman elipse. I was wondering about that. Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days). Mars Observer is taking 11 months, which seems to imply that it is going a bit outside of Mars orbit and catching it on the inward leg. What is the reason for this? (i was playing around a bit with xephem, and it looks like there should have been an orbit available that was much closer to a Hohmann orbit) Anyway, orbit elements that are compatible with xephem would be fun. david rickel drickel@sjc.mentorg.com ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 03:29:15 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Mars Observer orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct02.002723.21094@news.mentorg.com> drickel@sjc.mentorg.com (Dave Rickel) writes: >I was wondering about that. Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is about nine >months (the CRC says between 230 and 280 days). Mars Observer is taking >11 months... Don't forget that transit time to Mars varies somewhat because its orbit is very noticeably elliptical. You cannot, repeat *cannot*, get useful results for Earth-Mars trajectories based on assuming circular orbits. (I speak as the author of the first-look trajectory simulations for the Canadian Solar Sail Project...) A further note is that Mars Observer mission planning wants to minimize, not energy to reach Mars's *orbit* (which is what a Hohmann trajectory would give you, ignoring the noncircularities), but energy to reach an orbit around Mars itself. They care about arrival velocity, in other words, and might well choose a superficially-suboptimal orbit because they gain more from lower arrival velocity than they lose from greater energy requirements for the interplanetary trajectory. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 23:15:02 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Mars Observer orbit Newsgroups: sci.space >Some of us actually have software designed for interplanetary trajectories, >believe it or not. Please give us heliocentric elements, *not* Ra and Dec. >We can compute Ra and Dec ourselves if we know where the thing is. Could we also have the geocentric elements for Galileo at the time of its next (and last) Earth flyby? Please? Pretty please? I promise not to hurt the spacecraft. :-) Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 01:00:00 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Mars Observer orbit Newsgroups: sci.space >Mars Observer is taking >11 months, which seems to imply that it is going a bit outside of Mars orbit >and catching it on the inward leg. What is the reason for this? The orbit is computed to minimize injection energy and Mars orbit insertion delta-V. Given that Mars' orbit is fairly elliptical and inclined to the ecliptic as well, gas-guzzling transfer orbit solutions can arise when the transfer angle to Mars is set too close to 180 deg. In some cases, a "split-plane manuever" is required, where half-way to Mars, a burn is made to change the transfer orbit's inclination. MO would have done a split-plane burn had it launched prior to Sept. 21. (According to the info I have: "Mars Observer Trajectory and Orbit Design", Beerer & Roncoli, J. Spacecraft, V.28, No.5, pp 515-521). Jeff Bytof rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 11:06:30 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: New Planet Newsgroups: sci.space -From: LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU -Subject: New Planet? -Date: 15 Sep 92 19:21:46 GMT -Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute -Fm: SKY TELESCOPE 70007,2762 -There is some REALLY BIG NEWS just now breaking in the astronomical world. The -IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams has just issued IAU Circular 5611 -to report the discovery of a faint object that seems to be outside the orbit of -Pluto! Brian Marsden has given it the preliminary designation of an asteroid: -1992 QB1. But its true nature will be the subject of intense observations in -the next few months. -Dan Green of the CBAT says they really don't want people to start calling this -thing "Planet X" or the 10th planet or anything like that. How about "Bronson Alpha"? :-) :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 14:16:21 GMT From: rivero@mdcbbs.com Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space > -I suppose we should next try to restore the dinosaurs to the prominance they > -had a couple million years ago? > > That's a *little* beyond our current capability. I believe the current > (and recent) record for DNA extraction is ~25 million years, for a termite > trapped in amber. Reconstructing the entire genetic code from DNA fragments > and using that code to produce a living organism are additional challenges. > > I'd like to see the restoration of the wooly mammoth. With frozen tissue > available, there's a pretty good chance that they could be cloned. > There are quite a few concepts about this issue discussed in the book version of Jurassic Park (now in production at Amblin Entertainment). One of the techniques they describe is using only the sections of DNA that "define" the dinosuar and splicing them into strands that are "common" to many different species. In the case of the book, they use frog DNA which becmes part of the storyline (no spoilers). But well worth reading if you're interested in the subject. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Michael Rivero rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com "A Human's Human!" | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | I CAME, I SAW, I DIVORCED | <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 03:00:05 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA Newsgroups: sci.space In article <80827@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes: >What about the gas torus that Titan orbits inside of? Isn't that made >up of escaped gas? Would that also affect the atmosphere of Titan? Unless I'm very much mistaken, the density of the Titan torus are very low. I doubt they have any significant effect on the atmosphere (though they might contribute to Saturn's plasma environment, where even extremely low densities are important.) Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 02:37:19 GMT From: Ryan Montieth Gill Subject: SETI Newsgroups: sci.space labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill) writes: : : : Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the : next year? Guess I should have looked closer at the other lines in the group. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Oct 92 02:34:04 GMT From: Ryan Montieth Gill Subject: SETI Newsgroups: sci.space Are there any SETI projects due to come on line within the next year? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 92 23:23:50 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Space and Presidential Politics Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgwres01@ucs.usl.edu (Fraering Philip G) writes: > >Allen, I have a question for you: > >How do you get "sources?" Hardware Hank sells them for $19.95 -- they're in the same aisle as the sinks. :) Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute All facts in this post are based on publicly available information. All opinions expressed are solely those of the author. Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!rpi!utcsri!utzoo!henry From: Henry Spencer Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: what use is Freedom? Message-Id: Date: 1 Oct 92 22:02:53 GMT Article-I.D.: zoo.BvGqKu.F1L References: Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 15 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes: >Space Station Freedom is big....REALLY BIG...I mean, it's not just some >skylab or something... Darn right it's not Skylab. Skylab's habitable volume was larger. Admittedly, Fred does add some useful things, like more power, more places to mount things, and -- very important -- resupply capability. (Most of Skylab's supplies were launched with it... necessarily, for lack of any equivalent of the Russian Progress freighters.) On the whole it's a better station. But let us not get carried away with how tremendous it is. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 275 ------------------------------